AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

A Reminder

When I write an entire section in italics, it means that I am quoting. I may actually believe in what the section quotes, but please don't attribute the quote to me. Nor should you assume that I agree with everything that has been quoted. Nor should you infer anything much about my character or belief by looking into someone else's writing that I have quoted.

Why am I saying this?

Here is a QUOTE from a guy called Matthew who left a comment on a recent post I made about Wade Burlson and Al Mohler:

I have just stumbled across your site and based on this posting it is clear that you have not really studied Dr. Mohler. You are also full of contradictions. If you seriously think that Calvinism has no Biblical warrant then how do you explain God having control over creation and God saving anyone. God chose to redeem his people some that one must believe to be a Christian and is a starting point for Calvinism. Lastly, you imply that Mohler is a open theist. You are just flat out wrong on that. Listen to his radio show and read his blog. You will see that although you might not agree with the man all the time you must respect him. Not only for what he did at Southern Seminary but for the simple fact that he standing in the gap and trying to convey Biblcial truth to an unbiblical society.

What poor Matthew is complaining about is not what I wrote, but about what Wade Burlson wrote about Al Mohler. He has read a quote that I copied and pasted from Wade Burlson's site and somehow believed that I had written it, even though it is clear from the posting and the italics that I was quoting. Moreover, he has also assumed from this posting that I somehow believe that "Calvinism has no Biblical warrant", which sorta goes against everything I have said on this blog. Check my FAQ and you'll see that I'm a five-point Calvinist.

Wade Burlson on Al Mohler

Wade Burlson, one of the more important "Baptist Bloggers" who are changing the life of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), does not think that Al Mohler should be voted in as president of the SBC. Here's some of what Wade has written:

Some have expressed fear of Mohler's Calvinism, but it his Fundamentalism which should cause pause when it comes to electing Al as President. Whereas Al could argue Calvinism is based upon an interpretation of the sacred text, it is more difficult to deny his Fundamentalism is based on additions to the sacred text. For example, Al has called intentional childlessness moral rebellion. Chapter and verse from the sacred text are not used for such pontifical pronouncements, and we Southern Baptists should always quickly question moral standards that exceed the sufficient Scriptures. Further, when one's orthodoxy (doctrine) contradicts one's orthopraxy (practice or behavior), confusion arises. For instance, in arguing for the moral pronouncement that intentional childlessness is rebellion against God, Mohler writes:

"To demand that marriage means sex--but not children--is to defraud the creator of His joy and pleasure in seeing the saints raising His children."

Last time I checked only outright Socinians and Open Theists - not orthodox Calvinists - believed God intends to create children but is defrauded by the saints. Orthodoxy would say that God is as sovereign over the means as He is the ends. Is it not possible that a soverereign God actually had a hand in inventing contraception? Most Calvinists I know would agree. But when Calvinism weds herself to Fundamentalism a conundrum is born.

As regular readers know, I am quite a critic of Al Mohler. In my opinion, Mohler does not practice Sola Scriptura and binds the consciences of believers with human teaching, such as the belief that drinking alcohol is always sinful, that couples who are deliberately childless are somehow sinning (as per Wade's complaint above) and that torturing terrorist suspects is not sinful.

To read my previous Al Mohler posts, click on the Al Mohler tag below.

Al Mohler is a Freak

From the department of this-is-too-funny:

"Freak dancing" is well known throughout the nation, and it involves what can only be described as "sexually charged" physical contact and movement. But many of the kids in Argyle were "disgusted" that freak dancing was banned at the homecoming dance, so they left. That might be fairly easy to understand. After all, adolescents are expected to exhibit adolescent patterns of misbehavior. What makes this story so interesting is that so many parents responded by joining their adolescents in immature response. In fact, their protest of the superintendent's policy is shocking.

Remember that Al Mohler is a Baptist, which means that "Freak Dancing" is the inevitable result of sex before marriage.

Look - all dancing has a level of sexual suggestion to it. Is Al going to make up rules as to how far these kiddies (ie anyone under the age of 30) are allowed to dance with one another? We don't want all this sex before marriage to create the problem of "Freak Dancing" now do we?

But then, of course, Al is hardly the sort of person to be reading "The Onion". Click here to understand what I mean.

Al Mohler - Conservative

Here's a summary of Al Mohler's latest diatribes:

Atheists are a threat!

Environmentalists are a threat!

Secular universities are a threat!

Evolutionists and Europeans are a threat!

Europe and childless people suck

Books are cool

Biblical preaching is cool

To all Christians who don't go to a Christian university, let them be anathema

Euthanasia is a threat!

State run school education is a threat!

Blacks who blame other blacks are cool

I would agree with the Biblical preaching is cool bit, but little else (maybe books are cool)

Most of Mohler's messages here are essentially politically conservative talking points that he willingly disseminates amongst Grassroots Republicans American Evangelicals. Mohler, an influential Christian leader, is, I believe, guilty of mixing conservative culture with Biblical Christianity. A person who signed the Cambridge Declaration, which contains the phrase We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience, should know better.

Mohler should spend his time trying to bring the church back to biblical faith and practice rather than what he does now, which is to get angry that non-Christians don't obey the Bible or vote Republican.

D. James Kennedy, maker of "Evangelism Explosion", is dead

The Mole says:

The death of Dr. D. James Kennedy is yet another reminder of what the hymn writer Isaac Watts saw when he wrote that "time, like an ever rolling stream, bears all its sons away." Dr. Kennedy died this morning at his home in Ft. Lauderdale. He had been out of the public eye since suffering a significant cardiac arrest in January.... He has joined the great host now, and that chorus exceeds any on earth. I am thankful to God for the life, ministry, and personal influence of Dr. D. James Kennedy.

John Aravosis, a gay blogger, says:

Kennedy was a bigot. I have no respect for anyone, living or dead, who preaches hatred for his fellow man, and then has the audacity to claim that he's speaking for God. A higher power most certainly inspired D. James Kennedy. But that power had nothing to do with God.

Al Mohler still wants us to have more babies

Here's the link, but I'm not going to quote anything.

Basically, Mohler makes the following assumptions:

1. Having less babies will inevitably lead to economic crisis.
2. Europe's birth rate is low while its Muslim population has high birth rates, leading to an Islamic Europe.
3. The choice to not have babies is essentially a selfish one.
4. That childlessness has at its basis a form of pseudo-science that originated with Hitler.
5. America's relatively high birthrate is because of altruistic efforts to make the world a better place.
6. Modern Europe will decline like the Roman Empire.
   

Let me point out some simple rebuttals, each numbered according to Mohler's assumptions above.

1. Countries with low birthrates (below 2.1 children/woman) will eventually begin to shrink. There are substantial savings to be made, especially in the area of infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, rail) and housing. With less people inhabiting the same space as a previous generation, there will be no need to build major infrastructure projects and housing will be relatively cheap.
2. First generation immigrants will often reflect the birth-rates of their land of birth. Thus women from a high birth-rate country will still have lots of babies in their new country (such as Europe). However, their children and their grandchildren will have babies at the same rate as the nation around them. Muslims in Europe now may be having lots of babies... but the next generation of European-born Muslims won't. (Iran, btw, has a low birthrate - below replacement level. Iranians are mainly Islamic and do not live in a rich country... yet their birthrate is low)
3. There is no passage in the bible which directly commands human beings to have a minimum of 3 children. Moreover, scientific studies into animal birthrates show that many animals choose to put off reproduction when times are "tough".
4. I won't even bother to argue this one. Mohler breaks Godwin so he loses.
5. *Choke*. America is wonderful and unselfish because the people have lots of babies? What sort of argument is that? Besides, US birthrates are on their way down... which, for Mohler, would probably indicate the growing godlessness of America. It's sad to see that the same guy who signed The Cambridge Declaration - which states that the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation, which alone can bind the conscience - is binding the consciences of Christians with the unbiblical drivel he espouses here.
6. As I mentioned a few days ago, invoking the fall of the Roman Empire to bolster your argument is getting to be as bad as Godwin these days.
   

Europhobia

Al Mohler continues his Europhobic, America-centric view of life and the cultural war.

Be careful - we don't want America to be like Europe now, do we (with all its better health outcomes, better crime outcomes, less disparity between rich and poor and anything else that can be proven by statistical analysis)

Another reason not to trust Al Mohler

Read this:

The fact that such bias exists is significant in its own right, considering the fact that a majority of Americans at least claim to be evangelical Christians.

Wrong Al. I'm not from America but even I know the facts.

As I said in March last year:

35-40% of Americans claim to be "Born Again".
7% of Americans can be defined as Evangelicals.

Evangelicals fighting to allow death by stupidity

It's hard being an evangelical. Every time I read the news and see what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are doing, it makes me weep.

The latest issue? The fact that Evangelicals are now fighting to allow a Christian teenager the chance to die by parental stupidity.

The individual in question is Starchild Abraham Cherrix, a 16-year old kid from Virginia. Yes, you read that right, his first name is Starchild. That in itself should indicate a problem. Personally I think it would have been better to name him Adolf or Elvis... but these are not people who can be reasoned with.

Starchild Abe has Hodgkin's Lymphoma. After being diagnosed in 2005, he was put onto a regime of chemotherapy. According to the Wikipedia article, Hodgkin's has an 85% cure rate if treated in this way.

But after his first round of treatment, Starchild Abe and his parents decided that they would ditch the chemo. Instead, they would go for alternative treatment - the discredited Hoxsey Therapy that is only available in Mexico.

Hoxsey Therapy is about as useless and as superstitous as you can get in the modern world of alternative medicine. The reason why it is not approved as an alternative therapy in the USA is because no extensive medical testing has shown it to be effective. Indeed, many tests have proved that it has absolutely no effect whatsoever upon cancer sufferers. The American Cancer Society has publically repudiated the treatment:

After study of the literature and other available information, the American Cancer Society has found no evidence that the Hoxsey Method results in objective benefit in the treatment of cancer in human beings. Lacking such evidence, the American Cancer Society strongly urges individuals with cancer not to seek treatment with the Hoxsey Method.

Nevertheless, a clinic in Tijuana, Mexico offers the Hoxsey therapy to rich and stupid Americans who wish to spend money in the last few years of life believing that drinking a mixture of "licorice, red clover, burdock root, Stillingia root, barberry, Cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark, and potassium iodide" and having a paste of "antimony, zinc and bloodroot, arsenic, sulfur, and talc" covered over their skin (quotes from Wikipedia).

Now I may be wrong at this point, but one of the rights that patients have in America is the choice to refuse treament. Doctors cannot force treatment onto unwilling patients, who can opt to refuse treatment and instead die horrible deaths from preventable diseases if they so desire.

But Starchild Abe is a different case altogether. Being 16 years old he does not yet have the legal right to refuse treatment. Starchild Abe's parents, who obviously don't trust modern medicine, decided for their child to stop having Chemo and to start the Hoxsey therapy. They obviously told their doctor. Wrong move.

After the first round of treatment, their doctor prescibed another round of chemo. He did so probably because he believed that chemotherapy was the best chance that Starchild Abe had to live. When presented with the parents arguing that they would prefer to smear arsenic paste on his skin and get him to munch on cactus, he decided that enough was enough. He approached a social worker with the case, who was then able to get a court order to prevent Starchild Abe from crossing the Virginia border - the idea being that they were being prevented to cross into Mexico. The court also ordered that Starchild Abe undergo a second round of Chemotherapy.

In a case like this, the state has essentially determined that the parents of Starchild Abe were being grossly negligent in refusing their child medical care. If Starchild Abe was not a minor, his choice to eat cactus and smear aresenic on himself in the mistaken hope that it would cure his cancer would not be acted upon by the court. Since he is still only 16, and because the doctor obviously thought the parents were unreasonable and negligent, the court acted.

The result? Evangelical leaders are falling over themselves in fighting for the right to allow death by stupidity.

Al Mohler has even weighed in on this issue. Comparing the situation with "totalitarian regimes like China and the former Soviet Union", Mohler sees this issue as being one in which the rights of parents to choose the right medical treatment are being eroded by the evil of state interference.

Mind you, this is from a guy who thinks that drinking alcohol is sinful and that torture under strictly defined guidelines is good intelligence practice.

Mohler and others are angry at the idea that the state could interfere with the rights of parents in the way they bring up their children, and that this is an ominous sign of things to come. In other words, communism and Democrats and bogeymen.

Yet, if Starchild Abe's parents decided that the best solution to his condition was to hit him over the head with a specially blessed hammer until the demons of cancer were belted out of the kid, what would Mohler and the others think? Would they defend the right of parents to choose a treatment that would kill him?

And that's the real issue here. There is a reason God gave us brains, and over the years medical researchers have been able to verify through extensive testing that the Hoxsey therapy is a load of hooey. It's snake oil. Putting garlic around Starchild Abe's neck would be a better therapy. By forgetting basic facts and instead running with their political ideology, evangelical leaders who are supporting Starchild Abe's cactus diet are essentially supporting the right to allow a person to die by stupidity.

Of course, there are many contradictions here amongst evangelicals. On the one hand, they don't want the state to interfere with a parent's right to kill their son through stupidity, but they are more than willing to use the apparatus of the state to stop abortion on the basis that it results in the death of human life.

When we look at the bible - especially the Old Testament - we see that society needs to be ordered, and that laws are put into place to prevent people from gross sin. Parents are given responsibility over their children - but society also has a responsibility to ensure that parents don't abuse this situation.

In this case, with chemotherapy offering an 85% success rate, the choice of Starchild Abe's parents to cover him with arsenic paste and have him eat cactus is clearly and unambigiously WRONG. It's high time that courts of law put a stop to deadbeat parents abusing their kids, and this is one of those times.

But by taking the parent's side, Mohler and other evangelicals are arguing for death. Is the right of parents to ultimately determine their child's treatment more important than preventing the unnecessary and painful death of a teenager?


© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Evangelicals and Torture

Seems like Al Mohler isn't the only evangelical leader who thinks that torture is not inconsistent with the revealed will of God.

Al Mohler says nothing again

As many of you know, Al Mohler is my bestest friend in the whole wide world.

Recently, the Southern Baptist Convention met in Greensboro. It was a controversial conference to say the least, with the rise of "Baptist Bloggers" being seen as one of the reasons why Frank Page, and not Ronnie Floyd, was elected president of the SBC.

I've been reading many of these Baptist bloggers recently and there has been a number of issues that they have raised as being rather important:

1. The re-affirmation of the SBC's stance on alcohol, namely that a resolution was passed which pretty much stated that Christians shouldn't drink alcohol. Most of the bloggers I have read are arguing that this position of the SBC - something they have maintained for probably over a century - is biblically untenable.

2. The refusal to examine the issue of integrity in church membership, namely "honesty in reporting" membership by striking off unbelievers and non-attenders from church rolls. The fact that this is not done means that a) Baptist membership statistics are continually over-inflated and not representative of the true situation, and b) many Baptist churches are reporting falsehoods, which is obviously a moral problem.

So what does Al Mohler do? He starts up a special blog called "Conventional Thinking" where he is now posting his thoughts on the recent meeting in Greensboro and the issues that have come out of it.

Except, of course, that he isn't even bothering to address the thoughts and influence of the Baptist bloggers. It's only early days yet, but I reckon Mohler won't even touch the issue of abstinence, integrity in church membership, Frank Page's controversial election and the influence of blogs.

Al Mohler on scientists lying

Mohler asks Would Scientists Lie? and pretty much says yes they would.

Mohler, as part of his job as caped crusading culture warrior, gives us more ammunition against trusting those demon worshipping secular humanists. It is obviously important for Mohler to communicate to his audience that we should distrust the scientific community.

What Mohler should be really concerned about are all the born-again Christian politicians who are being linked to corruption and lying - people like Randy Cunningham, Ralph Reed and Tom DeLay.

But, of course, we can't have Mohler eroding the confidence that evangelicals have in the Republican party now can we?

Al Mohler wimps out again

Al Mohler is a wimp. He's a pushover. He's a purse-carrying theological nancy-boy controlled by his theocratic taskmasters in Colorado Springs.

Al's latest blog is about Houston mega-church pastor Joel Osteen. Osteen's commitment to prosperity theology has been well documented, not least by Internet Monk Michael Spencer, who describes him as a "motivational speaker pretending to be a Christian pastor". I certainly concur with Spencer that Osteen's very existence is an indication that something is very seriously wrong within American evangelicals.

The good news, it seems, is that Mohler, one of America's most prominent evangelical leaders, has taken notice of Osteen's popularity and influence, and has blogged about him.

But, of course, the bad news is that Mohler equivocates. His blog is not a detailed, point by point dissection of Osteen's grave theological errors and nor is it a call for us all to warn our fellow believers about such teaching. Instead it is, well, nothing.

Most of Mohler's article about Osteen is simply a direct quote from The New York Times. When Mohler actually writes something he starts off by essentially discrediting the NYT. "It would not be fair to characterize Mr. Osteen's ministry based upon a profile published in The New York Times" he says, which pretty much questions whether or not Osteen actually does teach bad theology since, well, you just can't trust the "MSM". Mohler then says "The real test of his ministry is what he does in the pulpit (or on the platform of his church, as it happens)", which of course, is true. Then comes a most cowardly and inept conclusion:

The first question is this -- Would anyone watching his television program, or sitting in his vast church facility, hear in Mr. Osteen's message a clear and undiluted message of Gospel proclamation? Would this person have any reason, based on hearing Mr. Osteen's message, to know himself as a sinner and to understand how the cross of Christ is the only ground of his salvation? Would he come to know that Jesus the Christ is fully human and fully divine, and that He came in order that we might have everlasting life -- not just a good parking space?

Mohler doesn't answer any of these softball questions himself, preferring his readers to make their own judgements. In fact, Mohler does not give any real opinion at all - and that is a grave problem. This final paragraph can be read in three different ways:

1. Mohler H8s Osteen
For those who recognise that Osteen is preaching a false message, Mohler may appear to be on their side. Certainly Michael Spencer thinks so, and is over the moon about Mohler's latest words.

If a knowledgeable Christian with a love for Christ and the Gospel and with a knowledge of prosperity doctrine turns on Osteen's TV show, they will conclude that Osteen does not preach the Gospel, nor does he preach the cross, and nor does he preach salvation. For this person (of which Michael Spencer is a good example), Mohler appears to be on his side.

2. Mohler (hearts) Osteen
But for those who support Osteen and think he's the ants pants and the bees knees, Mohler's conclusion defends their position. "Of course Joel preaches the Gospel" they would say, "Of course he preaches and believes in the cross of Christ". Osteen supporters would be quite happy with Mohler's article because they know that their Joel is doing all these things - even though it is obvious that what Osteen supporters think "preaching the gospel" is and what Osteen opponents think it is are actually quite different.

During the Osteen controversy at Michael Spencer's site, quite a number of Osteen supporters turned up on the comments thread and said wonderful things about him and how he preaches the gospel and everything, while at the same time not engaging with the details of Michael's arguments against him. The Osteenie-boppers, who do not really understand what "preaching the gospel" is, would not see in Mohler's words any implicit condemnation at all. If Mohler was making a criticism, his choice of words was woefully inarticulate.

In short - when confronted with Mohler's last paragraph from his blog, Osteen supporters would feel vindicated and supported. Mohler is not criticising their Joel. He is, through the use of rhetorical questions, implying that Joel is okay.

3. Mohler says something about Osteen.
And what of those who don't know much about Osteen? Well, since Mohler isn't exactly condemning Osteen in his article, ignorant readers may just conclude that the "MSM" is going overboard and indulging in typical Christian-bashing without checking the real facts - which are, of course, whether Osteen preaches the truth or not. Mohler hardly encourages these ignorant readers to make these checks themselves.

If there is any example of postmodernism infecting the church, Mohler's last paragraph is a good one to use. Osteen critics see Mohler being critical of Osteen, Osteen supporters see Mohler being supportive of Osteen. It depends upon who the audience is and what their presuppositions are to determine the meaning of the text. In this sense, Mohler's article is a wonderful example of "the death of the author" in action.

What is lacking in Mohler's article is his explicit support or rejection of Osteen and his teaching. He's happy to excoriate and expose the "works of Satan" in such areas as homosexuality, abortion, socialism and the Democratic Party, but when it is absolutely clear that Satan is also working through the evangelical church via the false teaching associated with prosperity theology, Mohler writes a piece that is as compromising as they come. Why?

I think the reason is because of his close ties to "Focus on the Family" (he's a board member). Osteen and his church, while indulging in the false teaching of prosperity theology, are nevertheless part of the evangelical mainstream. Osteen's followers and fans are probably numbered in the millions. If Al Mohler came out and slammed Osteen for his teaching, FOTF may incur the wrath of millions of Osteenie-boppers. It's hardly likely that Osteen would respond to Mohler's criticisms by admitting his sin, repenting and then preaching expository sermons for the rest of his ministry career. A Mohler/Osteen fight would be a battle between two evangelical heavyweights - both exuding power and influence over millions of Americans. It would be a contest that would confuse many and could possibly split the evangelical movement.

So, for the sake of appearing unified, Mohler writes a blog article that says nothing, that is written in such an expert, postmodern way that Roland Barthes himself would love it.

But this is not what Mohler should have done. He should have been courageous and boldly spoken the truth. He should have written a blog article that rips apart Osteen's teachings and exposed them for the falsehoods they are. But he didn't. He chose to be political. He chose to shut his mouth, keep his head down and follow the party line. Mohler has decided that evangelical unity is far more important than standing up for the truth.

I have criticised Mohler many times in this blog. Apart from this recent debacle, Mohler appears more than willing to compromise rather than come out for Biblical truth, even when it goes against the grain. One example of this is his unbiblical stance on the consumption of alcohol. Another example is his support for the use of torture.

So here's an evangelical leader who thinks alcohol is evil, torture is okay, and that prosperity theology is not a serious problem.

Enough is enough. Mohler should repent, resign from ministry, and retire.


© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Christians for Torture

Faithful Progressive has written about something that sickens me - absolutely.

A survey by Pew research polled over 2000 Americans about their attitude to torture. The question asked was:

Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?

The first surprise is that 63% of Americans - 63% - think that torture has some form of justification. This is abhorrent. It not only shows a level of ignorance about torture (the fact being that it is a most unreliable source of information gathering) but also a willingness to embrace the idea that when a person is a "suspected terrorist", then any belief in the adage "innocent until proven guilty" can be dispensed with.

The second surprise is that, of those Americans who were polled who identified themselves as "secular" or having "no religion", 51% thought that torture had some justification. Again, this is unacceptable, but notice that there is a much stronger anti-torture belief (41%) among such people. The irony here is that torture is actually more morally repugnant among the irreligious and the secularists than the norm.

The third, and perhaps worst, surprise, is that 65% of "White Evangelicals" think that torture has some form of justification - that is, slightly more than the average American.

I have a number of things to say about this.

1. While torture is not mentioned much in the Bible, it can be inferred quite easily that its practice is abhorrent to God. Hebrews 11.35 speaks of torture as a device inflicted upon God's faithful people by those who persecute them (gk. tumpanizo). A couple of verses later, in Hebrews 11.37, these saints were "mistreated" (gk. kakoucheo). Jesus himself, of course, was tortured and humilated in the lead up to his crucifixion (Matthew 27.24-31). During this time, he was whipped (gk. phragelloo, from the Latin flagellate), he was struck in the face (gk . tupto) and he was spat upon (gk. emptuo). The soldiers also mocked and humiliated him, giving him a crown of thorns and a purple robe and making fun of him. There is no corresponding passage in the Bible that I am aware of which condones this sort of behaviour. Moreover, the Apostle Paul points out in 1 Timothy 3.2 that elders in the church should not be "violent" (gk. plektes) which is, in effect, a personal quality that all Christians should have.

2. Torture is completely unreliable as a means of gaining vital information. Even if the subject was a guilty terrorist, the chances of actually getting information out of him via torture is very low. A person who is undergoing torture will become willing to say or sign anything if it means that the pain would stop. Christians who somehow think that torture is a "lesser evil" that might prevent many from dying in a planned terrorist attack have absolutely no idea how ineffectual torture is in gaining this sort of information.

3. Torturing a person if they are suspected to be a terrorist goes against the whole system of law that we live under. Torture is an assumption of guilt, and no person can be considered guilty unless they have gone through a legal process to establish their guilt. The idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty is one of the bedrocks of our civilisation and is backed up clearly by biblical evidence. All throughout the Old Testament we see God's rules for the nation of Israel, dictating the importance of having multiple witnesses and decrying legal corruption. Even if the subject is guilty, punishment can't be meted out without some form of trial beforehand. For Christians this is a very important issue because many Americans would maintain that these sorts of laws don't apply once they are outside America - which is hogwash, since Christians believe that the Bible is to be held as God's word everywhere in all creation.

I'll leave you with a quote from one of my least favourite evangelical leaders in America. There are many reasons why I don't like him, but this quote will give you some idea:

Under certain circumstances, most morally sensitive persons would surely allow interrogators to yell at prisoners and to use psychological intimidation, sleep deprivation, and the removal of creature comforts for purposes of obtaining vital information. In increasingly serious cases, most would likely allow some use of pharmaceuticals and more intensive and manipulative psychological techniques. In the most extreme of conceivable cases, most would also allow the use of far more serious mechanisms of coercion – even what we would all agree should be labeled as torture.

(snip)

I would argue that we cannot condone torture by codifying a list of exceptional situations in which techniques of torture might be legitimately used. At the same time, I would also argue that we cannot deny that there could exist circumstances in which such uses of torture might be made necessary.

- Al Mohler, president, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville Kentucky

© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

Complaining about Al Mohler

A complaint:

I don't know how to tell you this, but I am not Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr.'s whipping boy. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. Yes, Dr. Mohler may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, irritable troublemakers, but his latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining, but certainly not informative. What I'm saying is this: there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Dr. Mohler's from the get-go. If I have a bias, it is only against amoral menaces who befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. Even without the drugged-out ideology of barbarism in the picture, we can still say that Dr. Mohler's conclusions are more than just apolaustic. They're a revolt against nature.

Dr. Mohler's wheelings and dealings can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that it's Dr. Mohler's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to open the gates of Hell. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a birdbrained idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Dr. Mohler says that it is his moral imperative to advocate soulless tricks. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that contumelious freebooters are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. I, speaking as someone who is not an insane gadfly, can only disentangle people from the snares set by Dr. Mohler and his spokesmen if Dr. Mohler's neurotic coterie is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. There are three fairly obvious problems with his protests, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to embark on a new path towards change. First, he's the type of person who would support those for whom hatred has become a way of life if he got the chance. Second, he is out of touch with reality. And third, he either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Dr. Mohler even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to bask in the impulsive shine of opportunism.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Dr. Mohler and his toadies. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Dr. Mohler keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. The purpose of this deception may be to make emotionalism socially acceptable. Or maybe the purpose is to preach hatred. Oh what a tangled web Dr. Mohler weaves when first he practices to deceive. He has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Dr. Mohler's legatees suspect that Dr. Mohler has the mandate of Heaven to needle and wheedle quasi-deplorable flakes into his lynch mob. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because if I recall correctly, whenever Dr. Mohler is blamed for conspiring to convince people that their peers are already riding the Albert Mohler bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, he blames his attendants. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Dr. Mohler bring this battle to a fever pitch. Might I suggest that Dr. Mohler search for a hobby? It seems he has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to promote wowserism's traits as normative values to be embraced. Dr. Mohler, do you feel no shame for what you've done?

Even as I write those words I can feel Dr. Mohler cringe. That's okay. Cringe. I don't care, because in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Dr. Mohler, but Dr. Mohler's equivocations manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures. Phase two: vilify our history, character, values, and traditions.

And if you think that we can stop escapism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for ridiculous, headlong ranters, then you aren't thinking very clearly. There's one thing you can obviously say about Dr. Mohler: He has a sense of humor. He was being a real comedian when he told us that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Dr. Mohler himself). I have one final message for you before ending this letter: Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr.'s stolid attempts to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other namby-pamby, wretched lumpenproletariats ' intentions are well-nigh unforgivable.

More Mohler

Al has been talking out of his donkey...

All this should remind Christians that a market economy often commercializes vice and packages sin as a commodity. I do believe that a market economy -- based upon a free market and the system of capitalism -- promises the most prosperity for humankind. Furthermore, given the Christian doctrine of sin -- both individual and institutional -- we must reject the centralized control and collectivism of theories such as Marxism. Socialism fails because the reward of labor and investment is denied to those who deserve such rewards and because social structures embody the sins of those who comprise the society.

Still not happy Al.

Al Mohler says something good for a change

There's a few anti-liberal hints, but his current article Why "Spirituality" Isn't Enough -- Take Two is one of Mohler's better pieces of writing.

You all thought I hated Mohler didn't you? My practice is to always give credit where it's due - even from people with whom I disagree with.

Al Mohler's selective Morality

Like all modern Christian "culture warriors", Al Mohler has fallen pretty much into the trap of promoting selective morality.

Take a look at his blog. Better still, go through past articles and you'll see what are the things that annoy him the most.

On May 13th 2004, Mohler actually posted about the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. When confronted with the plain facts about American prisoner abuse, Mohler throws his hands up in the air and essentially says "Well, we Christians believe in original sin. No one should be surprised when this happens." Then, in a manner typical of defenders of the war at the time, he then starts talking about horrid and evil those terrorists were who killed Nicholas Berg. This sort of rhetorical tactic is a veiled attempt to minimise the abhorrent behaviour of one group of people by mentioning how horrible another group of people are. Moreover, in its specific context, it also lumps the victims of American torture with the enemy themselves, thus reducing the crime of the American torturers in the minds of the readers.

The next day, Mohler writes another article. This one is a little bit more predictable, with him lamenting the fact that women are allowed into the military and that some of the Abu Ghraib torturers were women. How sad for these women - he then writes about them in such a way as to minimise their own personal responsibility for the abuse and paints them as being victims of modern feminist philosophy. The message? They were not to blame, nor were their superiors - but those godless liberals were!

And then Mohler goes silent. Since then other examples of prisoner abuse have surfaced, especially in Afghanistan. In my own country, a report that has gained international exposure shows footage of American soldiers buring the corpses of (supposedly) Islamic fighters and then showering a village with religious insults about the matter. Add to this the examples of torture at Bagram Airbase that surfaced earlier this year, as well as the examples of torture at Guantanamo bay, Cuba, and it becomes obvious that American forces have been committing acts of torture on prisoners for some time since 9/11.

And what is Al Mohler's stance on this? He is silent. He is happy to write such behaviour off as being "original sin" while at the same time intimating that, well, the torture victims were probably horrible people anyway.

But when it comes to gay rights, abortion, religion in schools and so on, Al does not use the "oh well it's all original sin" argument. No. He makes it very plain that these things are wrong, and that we should fight against them.

In recent days there have been all sorts of things going wrong with the Republican administration - much of which could be classed as sin. Born-again Christian Tom DeLay's charges of money laundering is not addressed. Nor is fellow Justice-Sunday speaker Bill Frist's charges of insider trading spoken about. And what about Christian Coalition leader Ralph "I put enemies in body bags" Reed, who is involved with a gambling scandal with fellow lobbyist Jack Abramoff? Al is silent there too. He has spoken out in support for Harriet Miers - but there is nothing substantial that attempts to defend her basic suitability for being on SCOTUS - something that most non-evangelical Conservatives are jumping up and down about.

And then there's the Plame affair. If some of the claims made about what has been going on in the White House are true, then Born-Again Christian president George W. Bush was complicit with the covering up of a felony and the deliberate creation of misinformation to convince America to invade a nation that posed no threat at all to US security - and kill nearly 2000 American soliders and tens of thousands of Iraqis in the process.

Al completely ignores any of these major problems. For Al, it's all about abortion, homosexuality and getting an originalist judge on the supreme court. Those who read his website at the moment are mercifully excused any reason to critically engage with the multitude of potential sins that are being exposed about the Bush administration and its Republican backers.

And why is that the case? Probably because Al himself is a tool of politics - being ordered to say this and do that by his political masters. Don't concern yourself with Plame or prisoner abuse or Tom DeLay - just keep on the message that the Republicans are wonderful and godly and the party that Christians should vote for.

Or, at least, these orders are simply been give to Mohler's ghost writer so that his celebrity blog maintains his public persona.

From the Correct and Rebuke Al Mohler Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

Frequently Asked Questions about the writer



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Al Mohler wants us to have more babies

I have to admit that I feel betrayed by Al Mohler. The guy was one of the signatories for the Cambridge Declaration, one of the most important Christian documents written in the last 25 years in Evangelical History. Yet time and again Al has disappointed me by teaching what is unbiblical.

Recently, I lambasted Mohler over his stance on alcohol. In the initial posting, I unfairly labeled him a Pharisee. In a subsequent posting, I retracted this claim, but still pointed out the error of his ways.

Now Mohler has posted about the absolutely shocking decline in birth rates around the world that threatens to destroy the human race!!! My goodness!!! All over the world women are having less babies!!! Birth rates are down!!! If we don't have lots of children we''ll suffer massive economic hardship and the end of the world will be nigh!!! Is there any other way of ending such sentences without three exclamation marks???!!! What are we to do???!!!!1111eleven!!

Alright, let's look at the issues.

Yes it is true that birthrates are down all over the world. In many countries, the average woman is giving birth to less than two children. This is below replacement level. In order for a population to remain stable over the long term, each woman must give birth to, on average, 2.1 children. Any birth rate below this will eventually lead to population decline. Countries which have birth-rates below replacement level include Australia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Iran, Turkey, Russia and Algeria.

Economists generally portray this situation in a negative light. Without an increase in population, there will not be enough economic resources to support an ageing population that, over time, will become less and less productive. With less people, there will be less production and less consumption - leading to economic decline.

There is no doubt that a declining population will lead to this situation - but many economists have yet to tout the benefits of such a situation. With a declining population, less money would need to be spent on societal infrastructure such as roads and buildings. Housing would be quite cheap and space plentiful. Less food and energy would be required, making the costs of providing these things quite low.

So in my mind, the jury is out when it comes to the economics of population decline.

Mohler, however, is not talking so much about the economic problems as he is about the spiritual problems. Behind his article about population decline is a tacit assumption that we, as Christians, should have lots of babies.

In his arguments against the use of alcohol, Mohler attacked arrogant and divisive young people who were using their freedoms to almost prescribe the drinking of alcohol amongst Christians. I don't know if such people exist, but he essentially set up a strawman argument to bolster his case. He does the same in this area too. A month or two ago Mohler wrote an article about married couples who were putting off children until later. He attacked these couples as being selfish and materialistic.

There are obviously couples out there who have chosen not to have kids because of their materialism. But the last time I looked, Iran and Algeria were not the world's most richest places - and yet here are two nations who have below-replacement birth-rates. Mohler has assumed that couples who go without kids (or who have only one or two) are victims of our consumerist age - which shows how limited he is in his understanding.

Why is it that birth-rates are falling world-wide? During the Great Depression, birth rates fell dramatically, showing that economic circumstances do affect the decision to have children. But there is actually more to this than simple economics.

In Northern Australia, wildlife exists in a delicate balance with the amount of water available. During years of drought, Kangaroos and other native animals actually put off having babies. It's not that the animals have worked out that they need to do this because of lack of water - it's just a natural instinct they have under very trying circumstances.

All I'm trying to point out here is that birth-rates fluctuate because people (and animals) know that their present circumstances affect their decision to have offspring. It is a natural behaviour, and it is not easily explained away by selfishness or materialism.

So what does the Bible say on this matter?

As far as I can tell - precious little.

Psalm 127 is one of the passages that is oft quoted in this area. The Psalm points out that children are a blessing from the Lord, and that a man's children are like arrows in a quiver.

It is true that children are a blessing - but the psalm does not contain either an explicit or implicit command to have lots of children. God is not saying through this psalm that Christian women should aim to have at least three children.

Genesis 1.28 is another verse that is quoted often - the idea that God has commanded us to "be fruitful and multiply". Again this does not contain any implicit or explicit command to have lots of kids. It tells us that we should have them - but it doesn't say anything about having three or more kids.

Moreover, if this verse is a command to have kids regardless, then perhaps all those Kangaroos in Northern Australia are sinning against God when they, too, choose to limit their offspring. After all, God commands them to reproduce in Genesis 1.22.

So Biblically, I can't find any support for Mohler's command to have more babies. I therefore will assume that it is a command that comes from the mind of man, rather than God. Get your act together Al.

One more thing - In Al's recent posting about this issue, he speaks of "Scandinavian countries... dropping their population control policies". As far as I know, the only nation that has active policies in this area is China. If someone can give me any evidence of Scandinavian population control policies that would be handy. The reason why I am asking this is that I think Al is mistaken here - he is reproducing someone else's factual error.

That is, of course, if Al is the one actually writing his blog. I have questioned this before.


From the Correct and Rebuke Al Mohler Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.